Weird news - Man dies after hitting a manhole

When people die tragically or in an accident, sometimes the way that they go is very strange (or weird). Consider this case, which is also a prime example of the incompetence of the local municipal authorities who left the road in a state of disrepair during a pipeline laying process. Accidents are known to have a high rate of severe injuries, or even fatalities because of the speeds involved, and because of the impact on frail human bodies. However, when you combine this with the shock caused due to the vehicle hitting a manhole, the driver being apparently drunk, and the vehicle catching fire after falling in a manhole which caused the driver to burn to death (and if he was drunk, the ability to respond quickly would have been also lost) (link to article):

As per the police the victim, a resident of Ulwe, was drunk at the time of the accident. The incident occurred when he was crossing sector 20 around 12.30am as per reports by Hindustan Times. The man lost control of his vehicle, which then jumped on to a sewage pipeline along the road. Smita Jadhav, senior inspector of NRI police station said, "The manholes along the stretch are uncovered as the construction work of a pipeline and road is going on. The victim and his two-wheeler fell into a manhole. After the accident, the two-wheeler caught fire and exploded inside the pipeline. The victim suffered severe burns and died on the spot."

Weird news: Mother died in pothole, daughter charged with murder

This is a totally weird story. When an accident happens, it is normally treated as an accident, especially when the person driving is following traffic rules, not driving drunk or in similar situations. If the road was in a bad condition, or a large pothole was there which caused an accident, then it would follow logical reasoning that the road owning authorities should be held responsible, whether this be the contractor who built the road and it deteriorated within an expected period of time, or the authority engineers who were supposed to certify the road construction. But it is really weird that the police decided to take the side of these authorities and filed a case against the driver of the two-wheeler (the daughter of the lady who died in this accident) (link to article):

Losing her mother on 26 July was a huge shock for Priti Rathod. The 26-year-old was returning home with her mother when her scooter fell into a pothole in a town near Mumbai. Her mother was thrown off the scooter and died of head injuries. Priti, who works with a multinational company, has now been charged with causing her mother's death by rash driving. "I am too shocked to react. The cops have made me the accused in a case where my mother was killed," she told NDTV. When Priti went to the police to complain against the contractor involved in the construction of the road, they allegedly refused to register her complaint and recorded a case of "accidental death."

Weird news: Widow wants to sue herself for accident that killed husband

When something as weird as this happens, it is necessary to try and figure out why a person would want to file a case against herself. One can think of this as something emotional, since this lady wants to file a case to force a trial for negligence; after all, it was a road accident where her husband was thrown from the vehicle and died of his injuries, and it would be simple to think that she wants compensation as well as some kind of action for this negligence. But where it gets weird is that she herself was the driver. She has been trying to file this case for some time, and it got rejected in a court, but then she got permission for this case from the Utah Court of Appeals.
One possible reasoning for this case is that it will provide a path for some kind of financial settlement - as mentioned in the article, it could be because this action will provide a way for a jury to decide on a financial settlement for this negligence, against herself, which in turn will be provided by her insurance companies. Obviously, a lot of people anyhow suspect such kind of motives behind the case, and there are efforts to prevent this kind of case from proceeding, but how successful such efforts will be, will need to wait and see. (link to article):

Bagley's attorneys say she is advancing this lawsuit for the benefit of her husband's estate because creditors will have to be paid before the widow can receive any money as her husband's only heir. But other lawyers are looking to once again dismiss the suit, saying if it is allowed to continue, a jury would then be called upon to figure out if Bagley's negligence caused her own trauma. "The jury would be asked to determine how much money will fairly compensate Barbara Bagley for the harm she caused herself," attorneys Peter Christensen and Kathryn Tunacik were quoted as saying. "The jury will be highly confused -- it cannot order a person to compensate herself," they said. John Holcomb, professor in the Department of Business Ethics and Legal Studies at the University of Denver's Daniels College of Business, said the lawsuit is "quirky and also clever."

If this case does proceed and come to some kind of financial award, it could act as a precedent, and not a very nice precedent.